Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the Court of Appeal of the State of California was asked to determine a dispute over an insurance claim between Apex Solutions, Inc. (Apex), a cannabis business, and Falls Lake National Insurance Company (Falls Lake). In June 2020, burglars broke into Apex's facility and stole the contents of two vaults containing cannabis inventory, leading to property and business income losses. Apex claimed over $2.5 million for the loss from Falls Lake. The disagreement between the parties centered on whether the theft constituted one or two occurrences under the insurance policy, which would determine the payout limit.The court held that the theft was a single occurrence, based on the evidence that it was a coordinated raid. However, it also concluded that there was a disputed issue concerning the proper calculation of Apex’s claim of lost business income. This issue was remanded for further proceedings in the lower court.In reaching its decision, the court applied existing principles of contractual and insurance law, with a focus on the interpretation of the term "occurrence" in the insurance policy. The court emphasized the importance of considering the cause of the loss and the coordination of the activities leading to the loss in determining whether it was a single occurrence.In conclusion, the court partially reversed the judgment, affirming the single occurrence ruling but remanding the case for further proceedings on the lost business income claim. View "Apex Solutions, Inc. v. Falls Lake Ins. Management Co., Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the People of the State of California filed a lawsuit against Holiday Liquor (owned by Abdul Jamal Sheriff and operated under Freetown Holdings Company) for public nuisance. The People claimed that the store had become a hub for illegal drug transactions, with customers and dealers using the store as a meeting point. The store was accused of tolerating loitering and drug dealing, lacking security, operating until 2 a.m., and selling alcohol in cheap single-serving containers.The trial court granted summary judgment for the People, ordering the store to hire guards, stop selling single-serving containers of alcohol, and take other measures to address the issue. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court's decision.The court held that Holiday Liquor had indeed facilitated a public nuisance by failing to take reasonable measures to prevent the sale of illegal drugs on its property. The court ruled that the proprietor was aware of the illegal activities as he had been informed multiple times by the police. Despite this knowledge, he failed to implement recommended measures to mitigate the issue, such as hiring security guards, limiting operating hours, and ceasing the sale of single-serving alcohol containers. The ruling was based on the violation of sections 11570 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code (the drug house law), sections 3479 et seq. of the Civil Code (the public nuisance law), and sections 17200 et seq. of the Business and Professions Code (the unfair competition law). View "P. v. Freetown Holdings Co." on Justia Law

In 2014, plaintiffs Medallion Film LLC and Pelican Point Capital Partners entered into a consulting fee agreement with Clarius Capital Group, managed by William Sadleir. The agreement stipulated that Medallion Film and Pelican Point would assist Clarius in obtaining funding for film projects, and Clarius would pay them a portion of any funding obtained. However, it is alleged that Sadleir dissolved Clarius and its affiliate and subsidiary entities in 2015 and formed a new set of corporate entities under the name Aviron with the assistance of the law firm Loeb & Loeb.The plaintiffs allege that Sadleir controlled both the Clarius and Aviron entities and transferred Clarius’s assets to the Aviron entities. Aviron later obtained a loan for its film projects from BlackRock, which Medallion Film and Pelican Point claim they were entitled to a portion of under their agreement with Clarius. However, Sadleir denied any affiliation between Aviron and Clarius and said he was solely an employee of Aviron.The plaintiffs sued Loeb & Loeb in December 2021, alleging causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit by concealment, negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud, and violating California Business and Professions Code section 17200. Loeb & Loeb filed a special motion to strike the first amended complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation under section 425.16. The trial court granted the special motion to strike.However, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight vacated the judgment, reversed the order granting the special motion to strike, and remanded with directions to enter a new order denying the motion. View "Medallion Film LLC v. Loeb & Loeb LLP" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in a case involving Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC and Bannum, Inc., affiliates offering reentry services for formerly incarcerated individuals. After Bannum Saginaw's employees voted to unionize, the company undertook actions that were perceived as anti-union, leading to unfair labor practice charges. Bannum Saginaw was found guilty of firing union supporters Greg Price and Ernie Ahmad. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sought to enforce a supplemental decision and order directing the companies to pay specific backpay amounts to Price and Ahmad.The court held that Bannum, Inc. and Bannum Saginaw were a single employer and affirmed the Board's decision to jointly hold them responsible for the backpay. The court rejected the argument that this decision violated Bannum, Inc.'s due process rights, noting that when two entities constitute a single employer, notice to one is notice to all. The court also upheld the Board's backpay calculations, dismissing the companies' arguments that the employees had not sufficiently mitigated their damages. Consequently, the court granted the Board's application for enforcement and denied the companies' cross-petition. View "NLRB v. Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC" on Justia Law

In the case between the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC and Bannum, Inc., the court ruled in favor of the NLRB.Bannum Place of Saginaw, a provider of reentry services for formerly incarcerated individuals, had been found to have engaged in unfair labor practices, including the termination of two union supporters. The NLRB sought enforcement of its decision to award specific backpay amounts to the two affected employees. Bannum contested this decision, arguing that Bannum, Inc. and Bannum Place of Saginaw were not a single employer and that the backpay calculation was erroneous.The court, however, upheld the NLRB's decision, noting that substantial evidence supported the finding that Bannum, Inc. and Bannum Place of Saginaw constituted a single employer. The court also rejected Bannum's argument that the backpay calculation was erroneous, stating that the burden was on the employer to establish facts that would mitigate that liability. The court also dismissed Bannum’s claims that its due process rights were violated, explaining that the relationship between Bannum, Inc. and Bannum Place of Saginaw was so interrelated that they actually constituted a single integrated enterprise.In conclusion, the court granted the NLRB's application for enforcement and denied Bannum's cross-petition. View "NLRB v. Bannum Inc." on Justia Law

Three shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sued the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and the Department of the Treasury, alleging harm from the unconstitutional removal restriction of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Their claims were based on the premise that if President Trump had been able to remove the FHFA Director without restrictions, he would have ended a provision that, in the event of liquidation, allowed the Treasury to recover its full preference before any other shareholder. The district court dismissed the shareholders' claims, finding that they did not sufficiently demonstrate any harm.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court noted that to challenge agency action, a party must not only show that the removal restriction is unconstitutional but also that the provision caused or would cause them harm. The court found that the shareholders' assertions did not satisfy this standard. They relied heavily on a post-presidency letter from President Trump expressing his desire to have removed the FHFA Director during his presidency. The court determined that this letter did not meet the criteria of a "public statement expressing displeasure" as outlined by the Supreme Court in Collins v. Yellen. Furthermore, the court found the shareholders' circumstantial evidence of harm speculative and insufficient to state a claim for relief. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claims. View "Bhatti v. Fed. Housing Finance Agency" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed a lower court's ruling in a dispute involving the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration (ADFA) and two car dealerships, Trotter Ford and Trotter Auto. The case centered on whether the dealerships' assignment of vehicles to certain employees and family members, for personal use, constituted a "withdrawal from stock" subject to sales tax under Arkansas law.The ADFA audited Trotter Ford and Trotter Auto and found that several individuals not qualified as authorized users for dealer tags under Motor Vehicle Rule 2005-7 were using dealer-tagged vehicles. The ADFA considered this a "withdrawal from stock" which required the payment of sales tax and issued notices of proposed assessment to the dealerships. Trotter paid the assessed taxes and interest, but subsequently protested the assessments. After a consolidated administrative hearing and subsequent legal challenges, the Jefferson County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Trotter, reversing ADFA’s assessments.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas disagreed with the circuit court. The court held that the use of vehicles from the dealerships' inventory, assigned to unauthorized individuals for personal use, constituted a withdrawal from stock under Arkansas law and was therefore subject to sales tax. The court further held that ADFA met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Trotter was subject to sales tax based on the plain language of Arkansas Code Annotated section 26-52-322. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case. View "ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION V. TROTTER FORD, INC." on Justia Law

This case involves Alliance Housing Incorporated and North Penn Supportive Housing LLC, collectively known as Alliance, Minnesota nonprofits operating to create, own, and operate affordable housing for low and very low-income people. Alliance owns several properties in Minneapolis, which are used exclusively as private residences for tenants whose incomes are 30–50 percent of the area median income. Alliance provides some supplies and cleaning services to various units but does not occupy the properties. In late 2018, Alliance applied for tax exemption for all its properties in assessment year 2020. The Minneapolis City Assessor denied the applications. Alliance then filed a property tax petition for the assessment year 2020, payable in 2021, claiming that its properties were tax-exempt. The tax court concluded that the properties owned by Alliance were exempt from property taxes.The State of Minnesota in Supreme Court held that for purposes of qualifying for tax exemption under Article X, Section 1, of the Minnesota Constitution, an institution of purely public charity with a purpose of providing housing for low-income individuals uses its real property in furtherance of its charitable purpose when it leases its property to its intended beneficiaries for personal residence. The court found that when the very purpose of an Institution of Purely Public Charity (IPPC) is to own and operate real property in a charitable manner for private residence, the exclusive residential occupancy of the property by the clients of the IPPC does not defeat the constitutional requirement that property be used to further a charitable purpose. Therefore, the tax court did not err in finding that Alliance’s properties are used for the tax-exempt purpose of providing affordable housing to low-income tenants. The decision of the tax court granting property tax exemptions to Alliance’s properties was affirmed. View "Alliance Housing Incorporated vs. County of Hennepin" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Dr. R. Michael Williams, a board-certified oncologist, and several defendants, including Doctors Medical Center of Modesto (DMCM) and various associated individuals. After a deterioration in their professional relationship, Williams alleged that the defendants acted to limit his medical practice and restrict his hospital privileges, affecting his ability to treat patients. Williams filed multiple lawsuits against the defendants, the second of which is the subject of this appeal.The trial court granted two anti-SLAPP motions in favor of the defendants, finding that Williams' claims arose from their protected activity and that Williams failed to establish a probability of prevailing on his claims. The court also awarded the defendants their attorney fees. Williams appealed both the granting of the anti-SLAPP motions and the awards of attorney fees.The court of appeal reversed both the granting of the anti-SLAPP motions and the award of attorney fees, finding that the trial court erred in its application of the anti-SLAPP statute. The court distinguished between the factual allegations that form the basis of Williams' claims and the defendants' protected activities, concluding that not all of the claims in the complaint arose from protected activity. As such, not all of Williams' claims were subject to the anti-SLAPP statute and the defendants were not entitled to attorney fees. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision. View "Williams v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto" on Justia Law

This appeal originates from a dispute between Alameda Health System (AHS) and Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Association (ACERA), concerning the method employed by ACERA to calculate the annual contributions that participating employers must make towards unfunded liabilities. This system was intended to ensure the ability to finance the pensions promised to employees. AHS is one of seven public entities that are part of ACERA's retirement system.Since 1948, ACERA has used the “Percentage of Payroll” method to calculate annual contributions for unfunded liabilities among its participating employers. This common approach pools actuarial risk to reduce volatility in contribution rates, simplify contribution calculations, and ensure timely funding for the retirement system. AHS raised concerns about this method in 2015, suggesting an alternative approach, the “Percentage of Liability” method, could result in AHS paying $12 million less in contributions each year.AHS requested that ACERA change its methodology and retrospectively reallocate contributions made of “approximately $65 million.” ACERA's Board unanimously voted to deny AHS's requests after consideration and consultation. AHS subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief challenging ACERA’s decisions. In 2022, the court granted ACERA's motion for summary judgment and AHS appealed. The appeals court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion by ACERA or the lower court. View "Alameda Health System v. Alameda County Employees' Retirement Association" on Justia Law